How to publish old racist attitudes?

[ColonialProblem]

My relative wrote a diary in Colonial Africa, over 100 years ago. I'd like to quote from it in a family history book which I hope to publish on Amazon.

In the bit I want to use, he refers to their African servants as 'boys'. Would this be considered acceptable because of the age of the original, or should I redact it to 'b*ys' or something similar?

Don't redact but edit to be accurate eg servants.

Oh good lord publish it as it is! It is a historic document. As such you shouldn't change it but it does need some kind of addendum or comment from you recognizing the language/acknowledging the term.

I would use it as he has written it. its how you, the author, deals with it that is important.

I agree with the pp. You shouldn't change the language when directly quoting an historic document. At least that's what I was always taught.

As for "boys". I believe this is what all servants or apprentices might have been called at times, African or British

If you're quoting from a primary source you don't change the wording of that quote. As pp have said, you need to address the use of the term in the narrative. It is a very good example of colonial attitudes towards 'natives'.

It is a very good example of colonial attitudes towards 'natives'

In what way? An young English servant would also have been called "boy".

Keep the language. I'd add a note in the prelims to say what you've done and to explain the historical background of the doc and the author. (I'm an editor.)

I apologise if I'm not understanding, but I'm not seeing how the word itself is particularly offensive?

It can be a derogatory description - similar to saying 'those office girls' instead of 'the women in the office' but I'm assuming the quote is in context and be clear its historical words not yours.

I think what I'm trying to say is boys isn't an offensive word that needs starring out, but can be offending. So in the context of a quote, you might to engineer the quote to exclude it - so instead of it was noted that 'those slave boys always worked hard'' you'd put 'it was noted the men in slavery 'always worked hard''.

But over 100 years ago English servants would be called servant girls and lads. It was very normal for youngish teenagers to go into service at 14 or so, probably younger in colonial countries, so it might be accurate.

The term 'houseboy' is still in use in some countries, even when that 'boy' is an elderly gentleman. A statement at the beginning, as a preface, would be the best way to tackle this, I think.

But over 100 years ago English servants would be called servant girls and lads. It was very normal for youngish teenagers to go into service at 14 or so

Yes. It's even on the English census under occupations. "Mill boy" and "mill girl" or "plasterers boy" and "brickmakers boy" "farm boy" and so on

I sometimes work on racially offensive historical texts. I would be normal to asterisk out terms that are racial slurs (p*ki etc.). It would not be normal to asterisk out a term that is contextually offensive, like 'boy'. One solution would be to put a footnote, or a brief explanation the first time you quote, observing that you're aware of the colonising implications of the terminology.

But it doesn't have "colonising implications"

I think it does. I know 'boy' can also have class implications, as established on this thread, but certainly in a lot of contexts, it was explicitly used to distinguish between people of one race and people of another. There's a big body of scholarship looking at how language that characterises (eg) black people as immature/juvenile was used to demean.

Some may well have been literally teenage boys, but I believe the usage in this document extends to adult staff too. I will add commentary in the main text as suggested. Thanks!

Boys isn't a slur so no keep it in. If you're worried add a footnote about the context.